Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Overview

Alternative medicine is a very broad term for any method that seeks to prevent or heal disease through methods that have not yet been proven to work by peer-reviewed scientific studies. Any method that claims to provide healing without a literature of such studies is outside the mainstream of conventional medical practice.

This is wrong.

  1. Historically, medicine was not backed by peer reviewed scientific studies, though some of it was backed by science, but it was not alternative medicine
  2. Some convention medicine is experimental, and thus not backed by peer reviewed scientific studies, but it is not alternative medicine. This is particularly the case for unusual or emergency cases.
  3. Some conventional medicine is decidedly non-proven. Off the top of my head, the treatment of the UK's foot and mouth epidemic is a good example: it was a one-off event with certain unique circumstances, and the reaction was largely made up on the hoof, pun intended. Martin 17:20, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
No, Martin, the original statement is correct. It is you who is mistaken. This article does not state that all of medicine historically has been peer-reviewed. I do not know where you are getting that from. Rather, this article is talking mostly about the present, the 20th and 21st century. In the 21st century, mainstream conventional medicine is based on peer-reviewed scientific studies. Claims to the contrary are false. RK
Also, you are confused about the difference between quakcery and scientific experimentation. For instance, you claim "Some convention medicine is experimental, and thus not backed by peer reviewed scientific studies, but it is not alternative medicine." This is very confused. No one says that an emergency medical treatment of an individual is "alternative medicine". Mainstream science is based on techniques and medications whose effectiveness has been verified by multiple peer-reviewed experiments. Treatement of any given individual person, by definition, cannot be run as a peer-reviewed experiment. That is madness. RK 21:55, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
But I think you (RK) are too "scientific peer review" oriented. On the other hand, your outside the mainstream of conventional medical practice might not suport an statistical study if you take into account the number of Eastern and African people using "not-scientifically-peer-reviewed-medicine". Stating that needs quite a careful statistical study. Of course unless one assumes "medicine is what Western doctors apply to their patients".
Notice that I am not saying that peer review is unnecessary. I am saying that medicine (think please think of psychiatry............) in Western Countries is not the only medicine in the world, by far and large. Pfortuny 22:29, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying; as you correctly infer, the debate here is between what some call "Western" medicine, and anything else. However, so-called "western" medicine is not "western" at all. It is merely anything that is peer-reviewed. It is used by whites, blacks, asians, Jews, Hispanics, Indians, etc. It used in China, America, Chile, Korea, Egypt and Norway. There is nothing western about this form of medicine. Perhaps it should be called "Post-enlightenment" medicine, because the idea that doctors should have to prove their abilities and techniques is a relatively recent idea. RK 23:42, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
Well, that looks quite more proper, as long as one does not take "enlightenment" as the source of truth. I used the term "Western" (which as you say is improper) in order to eliminate any "more-true-than-other" claim from the name. Notice also that Alternative Medicine is often used in Western Countries as well :). The fact that it is not peer-reviewed does not mean it is harmful/useless/untrue/unhealing... Pfortuny 09:11, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I believe that mainstream conventional medicine is based on science. However, I do not believe a useful definition of conventional medicine is whether it has been proven (whatever that means) by peer reviewed scientific studies. Rather, there are a range of factors, which I might enumerate as:

  1. Degree of scientific basis (not just peer reviewed studies, but basis in general).
  2. Degree of reliance on the placebo effect.
  3. Degree to which emphasis is on ammeliorating suffering rather than curing illness.
  4. Degree to which emphasis is on promoting wellness compared to treating illness.
  5. etc

I agree with you that treatment of individuals cannot be run as peer reviewed science: that's my point. For example, the seperation of adult Siamese twins is very complex, and the procedures involved are unique to each case. While the procedures are based on science, at root, it is not true to say that they are proven by peer reviewed scientific studies - that's too strong. And, as noted in the para below on evidence-based medicine, up until comparatively recently much of medicine was not directly based on scientific evidence.

Every major technique and medication used in conventional medicine really is backed by peer-reviewed studies. That is just a fact. Individual operations in individual people, of course, cannot have any such studies; statistics, by their nature, do not exist for single cases of anything. RK

Another example: there is ongoing debate within medicine as to whether regular screening is effective in reducing breast cancer rates. There have been many studies, and last I heard, scientists didn't know. But breast cancer screening is not alternative medicine! It's based on science, but not proven by science - or at least, not yet. Martin 00:39, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree totally. I would say that the reason these techniques are science (and not alternative medicine) is because they are being studied in controlled tests, and the results of these studies constantly undergo peer-review. In contrast, the vast majority of alternative health providers never engage in such studies, and actually ignore the results of such studies when they do exist. They have a religious faith in the efficacy of their treatments. Most alternative health providers never say "Oops. We were wrong; let's stop this treatment because it doesn't work". That attitude is indicative of quackery. In contrast, medical doctors in mainstream science often show a willingness to change their minds about treatments, if new evidence shows that a change of mind is called for. The example you cite is an excellent of example of this. RK 21:46, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

So, would you agree with me that while "alternative" medicine is (perhaps substantially) less firmly grounded in science than conventional medicine, this is not what defines it? My feeling is the definition of "alternative" medicine lies chiefly in its acceptance by the mainstream medical community - and the correlation with scientific rigour is a consequence of that, rather than the definition in and of itself. Martin 23:26, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Chemotherapy is potentially lethal. Discussion at Talk:Chemotherapy.

This article is not objective!!! This article is totally biased. You had a totally objective version of this article, but you chose to post the biased version. The medical disclaimer around is missing too. Mr-Natural-Health 17:43, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I added an NPOV dispute header to reflect your feelings. Martin 17:54, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Another caller recently suggested to me that you geeks suffer from a case of excess Medical Scientism, and I have to agree. You have my condolences.--Mr-Natural-Health 14:58, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia certainly has an pro-science bias at the moment, but this is reducing over time, and hopefully as people like yourself contribute more (politely, please!) this will lessen further. However, don't try to fight the mountain - the wise Wikipedian often improves controversial articles slowly, one fact at a time. Martin 00:17, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mr-Natural-Health has just wrote a series of offensive statements to me on my User page, by admitting that he is a Nazi. He is totally out of control. Can some please ban him, please? This is not only not funny, it is scary. Please see the discussions about him on his user page; the consensus is that he needs to be banned. RK

Suggested changes for when the page becomes unprotected

  1. Change [num] style references in the text to (Author, 1952) style, so that we don't lose them all if the reference list gets reorganized. Populus 18:50, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  2. The complete list of Branches of Alternative Medicine belongs on the bottom of the page, in conformity with all the other articles. Further, it should be one list rather than broken into two parts. There is nothing wrong with listing the most commonly used forms of alternative medicine on top of the page and then repeating them below on the bottom of the page, just like it was shown for the last couple of days.--Mr-Natural-Health 19:34, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  3. The standard medical disclaimer boilerplate belongs on the bottom of the page.--Mr-Natural-Health 19:39, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  4. Alternative medicine should be nothing but a template featuring a minimum amount of neutral text. The text sections would consist of: Definition, Overview, Arguments against, Arguments in favor of, Sources of Funding, Branches of Alternative Medicine, Sample Journals, Citations Referenced as footnotes, Other References, External Links.The only point in an article like Alternative medicine is to provide a top node to the links of its branches.--Mr-Natural-Health 20:27, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  5. Once the text is agreed upon it should be protected. But, the list of Branches of Alternative Medicine should not be protected even if the links have to be placed in a new article.--Mr-Natural-Health 20:27, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  6. The closest I got to neutral text for this article is at the bottom of Alternative Medicine. There still are a few problems with this text. It contains a lot of unnecessary verbiage. The verbiage is often shown in the wrong section. And, the branches of alternative medicine should be shown below on the bottom in one complete list, while the most used branches belong listed in the overview.--Mr-Natural-Health 20:29, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have removed the following vague and useless claims:

Some proponents of alternative medicine dispute the degree to which conventional medical practices are scientifically justified. Although many aspects of conventional medicine such as antibiotics, asepsis, and the use of clinical trials to evaluate new medications and surgical techniques are science-based, many conventional medical practices persist from pre-scientific medical traditions. Many of these practices were never evaluated scientifically before the rise of evidence-based medicine (EBM), which did not actually appear until the 1970s with the McMaster Medical School in Canada that used a clinical learning strategy that would eventually develop, via further work at Harvard University in the 1980s and the establishment of the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University in 1995, into modern evidence-based medicine. Researchers in this area have shown that such practices as yearly physical examinations provide no measurable benefit to many patients.
Basically, this entire paragraph boils down to saying that "many conventional medical practices persist from pre-scientific medical traditions". Precisely what practices are these? And so what? Is this implication that everything humans ever did before the development of modern science is wrong? Or that everything humans ever did before the development of modern science is right? This is all just vague innuendo designed to cast doubt on medicine without any facts or specific arguments. Even more illogically, it implies that if some practice in modern medicine is not justified, then alternative medicine somehow is justified. This just has no logic. RK

Social critic Ivan Ilich believes that Western and alternative medical practices are generally equally effective, for two reasons. First, Western practices are more effective at dealing with illnesses caused by microbes, whereas alternative practices are more effective at dealing with illnesses that are psychosomatic.

I don't disagree with the content of this statement...but it is merely a round-about way of stating the "western" point of view. If this is correct, then Ilich admits that alternative medicine only works if the problem is mostly in your head, but when there is some real bacteria, fungus or virus, then you need real conventional medicine. Well, sure. What western scientist would disagree? RK
I don't think there's anything wrong with attributing views to named advocates rather than simply generic "most Western scientists" or similar. Indeed, I'd view it as superior. Martin 00:00, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything wrong with that either. I am glad we agree. However, that isn't what I was writing about. I think perhaps you thought I removed SLR's new paragraph; I only moved it down a few paragraphs into the main article, into the section on support of alternative medicine. RK
Oh, my apologies - I misread your edit summary as referring to this edit. Martin 00:12, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ilich holds that Western and alternative practices are equally effective at dealing with illnesses that are self-limiting.

I don't understand; he claims it as positive when alternative medicine cures something that he admits would go away by itself? How could this be seen as support any part of alternative medicine. It looks to me like he was criticising it and debunking it, but trying to say it in a fashion that wouldn't upset alternative health believers. RK 23:52, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
Well, you can recover from a self-limiting illness quickly or slowly, and it can be painful or pleasant, and you can be more or less inactive during convalesence. So I don't see this as necessarilly self-evident. Martin 00:00, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Understood. RK

Im am upset that RK and many other people are dismissing "alternative medicine" as a wacko and unbased practice. It is an ancient practice and is frequently used to complement a conventional medicinal treatment. It sometimes works when mainstream medicine fails, although a lot of times mainstream medicine is the only choice. It isn't always used as a cure. Many times, such procedures as accupuncture is administered to successfully relieve pain without side effects that many modern medicines have. Alexandros 00:27, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's just it. We can't say that "It sometimes works when mainstream medicine fails". There just isn't any evidence for this claim. Such claims exist, sure, but evidence? No. RK
The fact that we (I mean myself and say Alexandros and MyRedDice) do not find what you call evidence is no proof that the evidence does NOT exist. And you saying it is no proof either. Try not to finish a discussion with a categorial statement without evidence (it is you who is not giving any BTW). Pfortuny 09:10, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Is this argument a joke? The fact that no evidence exists for unicorns and Leprechauns does not mean that such evidence does not exist, sure. The same is true for belief in demons, alternative medicine, and Puff the magic dragon. So what? You are basically asking us to believe incredible things with no proof at all. That is irrational. RK
Oh, no, you read too much between the lines. Reading the above I might as well say: You are trying to call me a moron. This is irrational. As you see above, I was writing about THREE PEOPLE, and then you generalize, universalize, make a whole out of nothing and feel hurt. Go on with the article. Bye. Pfortuny 08:53, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think RK's specific point is right: we can't assert "It sometimes works when mainstream medicine fails" - rather, we would have to attribute that point of view to a named advocate. In terms of evidence, I suggest that the best place for detailed evidence for (and against) individual techniques (whether alternative or conventional) is on the relevant articles - it's yet another case where the best thing to resolve disagreement is to go to a higher level of detail. Martin 18:13, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

One Third of Symptoms Have Mysterious Origin

Mr-Natural-Health offers this article to think about:

One Third of Symptoms Have Mysterious Origin
Reuters Health, By Alison McCook, Thursday, December 4, 2003
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - More than one third of the physical symptoms that bring people to doctors' offices have no clear cause, new research suggests.... (Please follow the link to read the article.)

Comment: What struck me about this study was the reason why "Most patients visited their doctors[:] ... pain, commonly back pain, headache or pain in arms or legs." Pain management is precisely what published research has shown that alternative medicine is good for. Mr-Natural-Health 23:02, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Every comment I make is edited. RK deleted the complete citation. There is nothing ridiculous about common knowledge, provided of course you happen to track health research 365 days of the year like I have done for two years. Kind of makes me an expert on the subject, don't it? I do not believe in howling at the moon. Everything I say about AM is backed by published research.

Cheers.Mr-Natural-Health 11:29, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Anonymous writes "Alterntive Medicine works, but of course!"

Neither of the below citations make this claim. All they say is there are some controlled studies which show that acupuncture has some real pain control benefits. Great! Most scientists would not dispute this; neither would I! However, we dispute the mystical claims about acupuncture manipulating Qi, or that acupuncture can literally cure diseases. As this article states, mainstream science is open to exploring alternative medicine claims by controlled, peer-reviewed studies. Anything that is repeatedly verified by many scientists and doctors in such a scientific fashion isn't even "alternative" anymore; it is becoming conventional. If you rely on peer-reviewed studies (as you cite below) then you are rejecting the advocacy of new-age alternative medicine, and are actually embracing so-called "Western" medicine! Welcome to the club! RK 22:07, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
Great, we agree then that acupuncture has some real pain control benefits.
As to you other comments, I cannot respond without violating the rules of this joint.--Mr-Natural-Health 12:14, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
"Anything that is repeatedly verified by many scientists and doctors in such a scientific fashion isn't even 'alternative' anymore; it is becoming conventional." Here is my definition of AM: Alternative medicine was yesterday's quackery, is today's complementary medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of medicine.
"If you rely on peer-reviewed studies (as you cite below) then you are rejecting the advocacy of new-age alternative medicine, and are actually embracing so-called "Western" medicine!" Nope! It is called supporting all health claims made with references to citations.--Mr-Natural-Health

Allais G, De Lorenzo C, Quirico PE. Acupuncture in the prophylactic treatment of migraine without aura: a comparison with flunarizine. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12390610&dopt=Abstract Headache. 2002 Oct;42(9):855-61. PMID: 12390610

Acupuncture is reported effective for treating migraine headaches without visual disturbances. 12.77.32.49 19:51, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No small point!

Most scientists would not dispute that acupuncture has some real pain control benefits, nor would RK. This is no small point! It is the only point. The other concerns of RK towards alternative medicine are totally irrelevant, in my opinion, towards this article under dispute.--Mr-Natural-Health 23:25, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

M 18:46, 13 Dec 2003 . . Snoyes (Reverted to last edit by Tristanb)

Precisely what is wrong with my comment:

"Critiquing alternative medicine in general should be equated to howling at the moon since in the real world only specific branches of alternative medicine exist."

It is factually 100% correct.

The present presentation of Alternative medicine is not objective, period. It is totally slanted to disrespect something that is totally legal in most localities.

When will you correct the obious distortion to this article, if I am not allowed to correct it?--Mr-Natural-Health 18:54, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If a concept exists, then that concept can be critiqued. Simple as that. You can choose between it either existing and being critiqued, or it not existing. I actually prefer the non-existence of the concept since it is extremely vague and popularity and/or main-stream status is not usefull in determining the efficacy of medical treatment. But alas, the concept does exist. If an article is distorted in one direction, that does not mean that that can be rectified by adding distortions in the other direction. --snoyes 19:00, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
As I previously stated: Alternative Medicine does not in fact exist. The only thing that exists in the real world are individual branches of alternative medicine. There are in fact practitioners of acupuncture, but there are no pratitioners of alternative medicine in the real world. The concept of alternative medicine exists only to the extent that it is a neutral place holder for the branches of alernative medicine.
Ergo, "critiquing alternative medicine in general should be equated to howling at the moon since in the real world only specific branches of alternative medicine exist."
Your ignoring the presently existing distortion in Alternative medicine is tantamount to supporting it since you are not allowing me to correct it.--Mr-Natural-Health 19:12, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
OK, looks like we semi-agree on it just being place-holder. Although I would argue that it is not neutral, and is actually more detrimental as a place-holder than if there were no place-holder at all. The point you are trying to make is already addressed in part in the sentence "Criticisms of alternative medicine are complicated by the wide variety of alternative medical practices. Often, critics focus on a single practice, and argue that its failures generalize to the field as a whole." Maybe you would like to add to that without resorting to stupid polemic equations like "howling at the moon". And not saying what "should" be done. --snoyes 19:25, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I will now proceed to remove one instance of the existing distortion in Alternative medicine. Let us see, how long my netural edit will last?--Mr-Natural-Health 19:21, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I find it rather ammusing that you would call your edit "neutral" in advance, even though you are clearly not neutral on the topic. --snoyes 19:29, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I am always neutral. I will now proceed to the next logical test. I will remove the distracting section headers that follow Support for alternative medicine. All these sections are in fact logically a part of support for alternative medicine.--Mr-Natural-Health 19:39, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(re-insert headlines, as it is POV to say that the content under the headlines either supports or undermines alternative medicine)

Okay, have it your way. I will now move selectively support for alternative medicine out of these sections and put it where it belongs under support for alternative medicine.--Mr-Natural-Health 19:50, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be more neutral if we kept the content under the existin headlines, not implying that it either supports or undermines AM. And wouldn't it also be better stylistically, as it would not fragment the information. --snoyes 19:59, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It is called editing. And, a proper edit, clarifies rather than distracts. Further, the criticism section is presently bigger than the support section. We shall see, just how many different arguments exists that tend to support Alternative medicine.--Mr-Natural-Health 20:18, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary: I don't want to be quoted in the article, in part because I'm no expert in the area. Also, you misunderstood the quote of mine: It is a semantic critique of the existence of the concept of "alternative medicine". I think it is worthless to talk about medicine in terms of its popularity, and therefore think it is worthless to label a treatment as an "alternative medicine". --snoyes 20:52, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

RK (Removing MNH's POV. He still doesn't understand our NPOV policy.)

RK once again proves that an objective presentation of both sides of the issue is not possible in Wikipedia.--Mr-Natural-Health 21:31, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What precisely is wrong with:

"Ironically, support even comes from critics of alternative medicine. These critics are in effect making the claim that conventional medicine has and is in the process of assimilating alternative methods of treatments that have been proven to have worked from the various branches of alternative medicine.

Another way of stating this argument in support of alternative medicine comes from the definitions of complementary and integrative medicine. The boundary lines between alternative and mainstream medicine does in fact change over time. Methods once considered alternative may later be adopted by conventional medicine as physicians gradually incorporate alternative methods of treatment in their conventional medical practices."

I think this feels slightly POV, though it's tricky to say why. I might instead simply write:
"The boundary lines between alternative and mainstream medicine does has changed over time. Methods once considered alternative may later be adopted by conventional medicine as physicians gradually incorporate effective branches of alternative medicine of treatment in their conventional medical practices. Supporters of alternative methods suggest that much of what is currently called alternative medicine will be similarly assimilated by the mainstream."
Martin 19:41, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And,is anything wrong with:

"A concluding argument in favor of alternative medicine can be made that the scientific basis of alternative is not as bad as the critics of alternative medicine represent it be because conventional medicine in reality has not been as science-based as it is publicly represented to be.[8] Physicians have openly admitted that their practice of traditional medicine was not science-base when they expressed a need for evidence-based medicine. The mere fact that evidence-based medicine is being promoted speaks historically to a practiced of medicine that was not completely based on science.

[8] Zalewski, Z. Importance of Philosophy of Science to the History of Medical Thinking. CMJ 1999; 40: 8-13. CMJ online"

I, as in myself, want an objective and complete presentation of the arugments that tend to support alternative medicine. Currently, RK is preventing this. And, I want to know why.--Mr-Natural-Health 21:36, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This looks fine to me: you've referenced a study backing up yout point, and linked to a good article on the specifics. Assuming the study says what you say it says, I see no reason to remove this paragraph. Martin 19:41, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Naturally, unless somebody explicitly points out what is precisely wrong here so that I can make a minor modification, I totally plan on re-adding my perfectly valid and neutral arguments.--Mr-Natural-Health 21:44, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It is now up to YOU!

I have decided that in the future I will only be monitoring the Support for Alternative Medicine section. Supporters of Alternative medicine now have provided 9 general arguments in support of their positions. I will welcome any further improvements made to this section in the future, such as a reference for the social critic Ivan Ilich (perhaps a third party web page or a book reference). The other arguments are clearly articulated and most are well supported with references. I will continue to edit out any further attempts by the opposition to interject their POV into the support section. Personally, I do not care what the opposition writes, just as long as they stay out of the support section. I have not even read through all their criticisms and do not ever intend to do so.

The quality of the writing in the other sections will determine whether or not the public will rate this Alternative medicine article as professionally written or amateurish. Excess verbiage, redundant text, and POV interjected in any section other than support or criticism will only reflect badly upon Wikipedia. I have spent enough of my time editing the other sections.--Mr-Natural-Health 22:49, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • Mr-Natural-Health - it is obvious that your POV is in favor of alternative medicine, so if you want to place arguments (following the NPOV policy) in favor of it, that would be a valuable contribution. Pakaran 17:34, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that only individuals qualified/familiar with the subject matter should be editing these articles. I am not all that familiar with Alternative medicine. What I am familiar with is the concept of Medical Scientism. From having conducted a number of public discussions on the Internet on the subject of medical scientism I am able to effectively counter any criticisms of alternative medicine because what you guys are actually writing on is medical scientism PRO and CON. And, my previous studies on the History of Medicine have also provided me with a number of previously found references. I did next to no original research for Alternative medicine. I simply looked up what I had previously written on several other related topics.--Mr-Natural-Health 17:59, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Without intending to step on any toes in what is obviously a long-running debate, I cannot see why there should be a section on the support for Alternative Medicine in this article. It is not in keeping with the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. By this token, should philosophical, moralistic or political articles also have sections explaining why proponents support those stances? Should a section on democracy include a section explaining why it is a plausible alternative to other political systems?

    It also seems to me that items 1 and 3 in this section are not genuine support for alternative medicine, but rebuttals to criticisms. If the section to provide support for alternative medicine is to remain in Wikipedia, I think that the items within it should not include responses to criticism, or that the title should be altered to reflect this. Similarly, 8 is not true support of alternative medicine, since government body funding of research work into these fields does not necessarily mean that the techniques are valid or worthwhile, merely that they need more rigorous investigation to prove that they are efficacious (Our mission is to support rigorous research on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), to train researchers in CAM, and to disseminate information to the public and professionals on which CAM modalities work, which do not, and why - from NCCAM's website). Finally, item 10 could be strengthened by providing an example. -- MykReeve 22:57, 04 Jan 2004 (GMT)
  • It was decided long ago that Alternative medicine must include two sections: one on criticisms and one on support. The only reason that you are objecting to the section on Support is because it is making the opposition look stupid, IMHO. Why don't you improve the criticism section. It is making the opposition look pretty bad. The other sections of this article are quite poorly written. The last sentence in the definition paragraph is still wrong / poorly written. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:07, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • With respect, do not try to second guess me. You will note that I haven't stated an opinion either for or against Alternative Medicine, and I wouldn't say that my comments have been particularly negative or detrimental towards it. My main reasons for posting are that;

    a) I don't believe that any entry in an encyclopedia should need a section in its defence, regardless of how widely-criticised it is, and

    b) the "support" provided here contains some items which do not consistute support for Alternative Medicine, and therefore do not merit inclusion here. (For example, the existence of NCCAM could as easily be interpreted as a Government project to prove that most alternative medicines produce insubstantial or inconsistent results, as a Government project to support scientific research into these fields).

    I resent the implication that you know my opinion - for the record, I have no interest in seeing Alternative medicine unfairly criticised, but similarly, I have no desire to see it unnecessarily or inaccurately defended. By this token, I don't believe that either Criticisms or Support for Alternative medicine have any place in this article. It does strike me that the Criticism section is more consistent with the NPOV policy, since the arguments for and against most items in that section are succinctly expressed in a reasonably balanced manner.

    I am still unclear about your decision to excise references to allopathic medicine to the opening paragraph - this is a term that is used by some alternative medicine practioners, regardless of your personal belief, and therefore is as deserving of mention in the opening section of this article as the reference to "complimentary medicine". I take exception to the Danhicks's use of the word "erroneously", since this aspect is unproven, and constitutes his POV. But it is certainly not a POV that some alternative medicine practioners refer to "conventional medicine" as "allopathic medicine", so that element of the paragraph deserves to stay. Such a statement is fully in keeping with item 3 of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. -- MykReeve 15:33, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In response to your 1st paragraph, "It was decided long ago that Alternative medicine must include two sections: one on criticisms and one on support" by people other than me. I suggest that you re-read the first sentence in the support section. Arguments that tend to support the general concept of alternative medicine means exactly that. I believe that every argument presented has at least one reference from a third party to support it. Many of them have more than one reference. Not one position stated in the criticism section is supported as far as I am aware of.
In response to your second paragraph, allopathy has NOTHING to do with AM, period. Want to comment about Allopathy than put it in the Alopathic medicine article. It certainly does not belong in the definition paragraph. You don't define something by adding: "Oh by the way did you know that ... "This article is about alternative medicine. Therefore, anything expressed that belittles AM or the practitioners thereof is POV in my opinion. You do not write an unbaised article on AM by criticizing it or its practitioners.
The only reason that funding is in this article is that the opposition brought it up. Supporters responded by proving the opposition to be wrong. AM exists and there are in fact sources of funding for AM research. No point removing something that will only be added back next week when the opposition will once again claim that a lack of funding for research is somehow a major argument against AM. -- Mr-Natural-Health 23:41, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"No point removing something that will only be added back next week when the opposition will once again claim that a lack of funding for research is somehow a major argument against AM" - which is precisely why this whole mess of having both Criticisms and Support for the subject shouldn't be present in an encyclopedic article. My point is that articles shouldn't exist to be battlegrounds between opposition and proposition - normal encyclopedias are not written this way, so there's no reason that Wikipedia should be. Articles should NOT be written from the POV of either a proponent or an opponent to the subject - so "anything expressed that belittles AM or the practitioners thereof" would be POV, but by that argument, so would "anything expressed that promotes AM or the practice thereof". An AM article should express points of view impartially.

Having read much of the discussion that has occurred on this article, I can understand why several users have given up trying to debate with you, to the detriment of many peoples' Wikipedia experiences, and this article in particular. I will leave you to edit this article to your own devices, since you clearly do not want any others to contribute to it, unless they are prepared to agree with your own POV.

You keep speaking of wishing that someone would "improve" the Criticisms section, but it seems to me that what you mean by this is that you merely wish it to be altered so that it constitutes opposition to AM, rather than being balanced - as an encyclopedic article should be. You will, of course, take a different stance, and you are entitled to do so, as it suits your biased view of what constitutes a POV. Best wishes for future amendments. -- MykReeve 00:47, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Reference, please

[critics] point out that the certainty of advocates is usually in direct proportion to the lack of peer-reviewed documentation.

C'mon, I'm dying to see the peer reviewed scientific research for that. Heck, it'd be an improvement just to have a named advocate who makes that claim, which I don't see either. Martin 00:38, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Merge nonsense

If this new written aritcle merge nonsense is nothing but an underhanded attempt to get rid of the arguments in support of Alternative medicine, I am here to add them back.--Mr-Natural-Health 19:05, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

See CAM discussion for more on pros and cons of merger

See Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine for a related discussion on a merge of this page with Complementary and alternative medicine.

68.167.191.104 00:01, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why is non-supporting material being claimed as support?

Mr Natural Health mistakenly put the following in the section for support of alternative medicine:

The final response to the above criticisms is that the opposition primarily assumes that alternative medicine works by magic and equates all branches of alternative medicine with quackery and health fraud. Professionalized alternative medicine no more works by magic than do prescription medications possess magical curative powers. Quackery and health fraud is a legal matter where the law should be allowed to take its course. The opposition turns a blind eye to health fraud committed by conventional medicine. The list of very questionable conventional medical practices is quite long and includes such things as conventional hospitals soliciting the public to get expensive and totally unnecessary body scans, hormone replacement therapy, and annual mammograms.

Nothing in this paragraph offers any support for alternative medicine! Didn't anyone notice this? Further, it is just a rant against most of western medicine, made by a man who claims that doctors murdered his parent with chemotheraphy. This is not, to say the least, encyclopedia quality material, let alone NPOV. RK

Social critic Ivan Illich believes that Western and alternative medical practices are generally equally effective, for two reasons. First, Western practices are more effective at dealing with illnesses caused by microbes, whereas alternative practices are more effective at dealing with illnesses that are psychosomatic. Illich holds that Western and alternative practices are equally effective at dealing with illnesses that are self-limiting. (Illich 1976) In other words, Illich has suggested that conventional medicine treats illnesses that the human body would heal naturally all by itself without any form of treatment.

Again, nothing in this paragraph offers any data which supports alternative medicine. Again, didn't anyone notice? Any most importantly, MNH dishonestly mis-states Illich's position; in fact, Illich is clearly suggesting that it is alternative medicine which can only treat an illness which would go away by itself. RK Jan 6, 2004

Adherents of alternative medicine claim that they only want to heal people; they have no interest in money or publicity. Thus they see no need to offer proof, and refuse to demonstrate their effectiveness in the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge offered by the James Randi Educational Foundation.

Um, how is this presenting data which supports all of, or even any of, alternative medicine? This is just more of MNH's POV rants. RK


Some alternative treatment methods have been shown to be effective.

Huh? This vague claim, without any citations, is proof? Not even close.

Edzard Ernst writes in the Medical Journal of Australia that: "About half the general population in developed countries uses complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Yet many conventional healthcare professionals refuse to take CAM seriously.

Millions of people believe that Satan exists. How is this proof of Satan? Millions of people believe that eating cheese cures gout? How is this proof or support of this people? Millions of people used to believe in elves and trolls. Does this count as support for elves and trolls? Come on. RK 02:15, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

A search on PubMed reveals that there are over 370,000 research papers classified as alternative medicine published since 1966 in the National Library of Medicine database (such as Kleijnen 1991, Linde 1997, Michalsen 2003, Gonsalkorale 2003, and Berga 2003). There are no publicly available statistics on exactly how many of these studies were controlled or double-blind peer-reviewed experiments. They were, however, all published in research journals recognized by Medline.

Huh? No one denies that many scientists have written papers which mention alternative medicine. And these peer-reviewed, controlled studies show that alternative medicine doesn't work! RK 02:15, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

In another argument, the question of the effectiveness of various techniques used by practitioners of alternative medicine has to be considered independently for each method, as well as for each medical condition or disease treated. When exploring the individual branches of alternative medicine four questions need to be answered. The answers to these questions will reveal whether or not each branch of alternative medicine is mostly quackery or something that the public should seriously consider using.

Again, nothing in this paragraph offers any data which supports alternative medicine. Again, didn't anyone notice? These are just MNH's personal musings, and it contains no support, let alone proof. This is getting ridiculous. RK

In the United States, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a division of the National Institutes of Health, provides funding and other support for research in alternative medicine.

HEre MNH proves that some organization is spending a lot of money on the subject. Ok...and some organizations also spend money on God, Satan and even on Dungeons and Dragons. So what? How does this support the claims of alternative medicine proponents? Nothing written in this paragraoh offers any support at all. RK 02:23, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

Some of the strongest support for the value of clinical experience in alternative medicine comes from conventional physicians who have voiced their criticisms of evidence-based medicine (Tonelli 2001, Downing 2003). These physicians while arguing about their need to apply population evidence to the patient standing before them are in effect supporting the value of eclectic branches of alternative medicine which place great value upon the clinical experience of the practitioner.

So we have anecdotes with no proof, and that somehow overturns evidence and proof? This by you is support?

The boundary lines between alternative and mainstream medicine have changed over time. Methods once considered alternative have later been adopted by conventional medicine as physicians gradually incorporate effective branches of alternative medicine of treatment in their conventional medical practices. Supporters of alternative methods suggest that much of what is currently called alternative medicine will be similarly assimilated by the mainstream in the future.

Soryy, but you missed the point. These studies have also disproven the vast majority of alternative medicine technqiues. For those techniques which were proven in controlled, peer-reviewed studies, these are not alternative by any definition of the word. Your argument literally ends with "Maybe someday, someone will prove that my beliefs are true." This is not support of alternative medicine. It is only wishful thinking. RK

An argument can be made that it is not so much a question of proving what is right about alternative medicine, but rather in pointing out what is specifically wrong with conventional medicine....

Again, no support, but just an anti-science POV rant from MNH.

User:RK vs. User:Mr-Natural-Health

RK has once again has decided to singled handedly destroy the work of several people that took several weeks of discussions to create in Alternative medicine. I have supported with numerous references and citations every argument made in support of alternative medicine. RK has not supported a single one of his obviously POV comments. An article about a perfectly legal subject called alternative medicine should obviously be in support of it. Health Sciences and Medicine appear to be as poorly organized and written as is Alternative medicine. Alternative medicine currents suffers from the antics of RK and others who are unable to deal with the reality of alternative medicine. RK has been totally unable to articulate and support with references a rational argument against alternative medicine. Why doesn't RK try to clean up Health Sciences and Medicine rather than constantly work at destroying Alternative medicine? -- 12.77.6.54 15:12, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/t/Talk%7EAlternative_medicine_Archive_2_b5db.html"